Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 California opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Steven S.green2 sentences1990(See In re Steven S. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 23, 26-30 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 525 ].) Mother claims that when the petition is stripped of these factual allegations, all that remains is the bare statutory language which does not satisfy the requirement of a concise, separate statement of facts in support of the petition. (§ 332, subd. (f); In re Jeremy C. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 384, 397 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 283 ].) We disagree. 1990(See In re Steven S. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 23, 26-30 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 525 ].) Mother claims that when the petition is stripped of these factual allegations, all that remains is the bare statutory language which does not satisfy the requirement of a concise, separate statement of facts in support of the petition. (§ 332, subd. (f); In re Jeremy C. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 384, 397 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 283 ].) We disagree. | 2 | 2 |
O'Neal v. Jeremy C.green2 sentences1990(See In re Steven S. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 23, 26-30 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 525 ].) Mother claims that when the petition is stripped of these factual allegations, all that remains is the bare statutory language which does not satisfy the requirement of a concise, separate statement of facts in support of the petition. (§ 332, subd. (f); In re Jeremy C. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 384, 397 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 283 ].) We disagree. 1990(See In re Steven S. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 23, 26-30 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 525 ].) Mother claims that when the petition is stripped of these factual allegations, all that remains is the bare statutory language which does not satisfy the requirement of a concise, separate statement of facts in support of the petition. (§ 332, subd. (f); In re Jeremy C. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 384, 397 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 283 ].) We disagree. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Merrickgreen1 sentence2025Although probate guardianship is somewhat broader and has greater rights than dependency guardianship (see Dora V. v. Superior Court (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 987 , 1002; Merrick V., supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 250), section 728 authorizes the juvenile court to terminate a probate guardianship if a dependency petition under section 300 has been filed. | 1 | 1 |
People v. W.B.green1 sentence2021(In re W.B. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 30, 43 [“In the broadest sense, adjudications under section 300 are ‘dependency’ proceedings, and adjudications under sections 601 and 602 are ‘delinquency’ proceedings.”].) But we are not persuaded that this compels the conclusion that “delinquent history” and “delinquent behavior,” for purposes of section 707, refers only to conduct that led to a delinquency petition. | 1 | 1 |
In Re James F.green1 sentence2015(In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901, 915-918 [procedural error in appointment of guardian ad litem for father in dependency proceeding subject to harmless error analysis].) Section 332 identifies the information that must be included in a dependency petition under section 300. | 1 | 1 |
Mervin v. Gustave G.green2 sentences2011(In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 460 ].) The record contains sufficient evidence to sustain the dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (a). 2011(In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 460 ].) The record contains sufficient evidence to sustain the dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (a). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Jesusa
green
2 sentences2016Code, § 316.2, subd. (a).) *648 The juvenile court's exclusive jurisdiction over parentage issues, once a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 dependency petition has been filed, was recognized by our Supreme Court in In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 205 , 85 P.3d 2 , in which the court noted: "The juvenile court where the dependency petition is pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear that action from the time the petition is filed until the petition is dismissed, the dependency is terminated, or parental rights are terminated. [Citation.] Alternatively, th 2016Code, § 316.2, subd. (a).) *648 The juvenile court's exclusive jurisdiction over parentage issues, once a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 dependency petition has been filed, was recognized by our Supreme Court in In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 205 , 85 P.3d 2 , in which the court noted: "The juvenile court where the dependency petition is pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear that action from the time the petition is filed until the petition is dismissed, the dependency is terminated, or parental rights are terminated. [Citation.] Alternatively, th | 3 | 2016–2016 |
L.Z. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2022In L.Z., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th 1285 , “Z.Z. was two months old and suffered unexplained, nonaccidental injuries while in her parents’ care that included a spiral fracture to her left humerus and nine broken ribs.” (Id. at p. 1287.) There, the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (e). 2022In L.Z., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th 1285 , “Z.Z. was two months old and suffered unexplained, nonaccidental injuries while in her parents’ care that included a spiral fracture to her left humerus and nine broken ribs.” (Id. at p. 1287.) There, the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (e). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. M.H.
green
2 sentences2021(See In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613 , 621 [juvenile court properly sustained dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (c), where father’s conduct caused his daughter to feel scared and anxious, to cry frequently, and to fear interacting with father]; In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911 , 919-920 [substantial evidence supported juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (c) where, although the child had not yet suffered serious emotional harm, he was at risk of future harm because he was exposed to constant argument and domestic violence between his 2021(See In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613 , 621 [juvenile court properly sustained dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (c), where father’s conduct caused his daughter to feel scared and anxious, to cry frequently, and to fear interacting with father]; In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911 , 919–920 [substantial evidence supported juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (c) where, although the child had not yet suffered serious emotional harm, he was at risk of future harm because he was exposed to constant argument and domestic violence between his | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Matthew S.
green
2 sentences2021(See In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613 , 621 [juvenile court properly sustained dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (c), where father’s conduct caused his daughter to feel scared and anxious, to cry frequently, and to fear interacting with father]; In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911 , 919-920 [substantial evidence supported juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (c) where, although the child had not yet suffered serious emotional harm, he was at risk of future harm because he was exposed to constant argument and domestic violence between his 2021(See In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613 , 621 [juvenile court properly sustained dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (c), where father’s conduct caused his daughter to feel scared and anxious, to cry frequently, and to fear interacting with father]; In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911 , 919–920 [substantial evidence supported juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (c) where, although the child had not yet suffered serious emotional harm, he was at risk of future harm because he was exposed to constant argument and domestic violence between his | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Dora V. v. Super. Ct.
green
1 sentence2025Although probate guardianship is somewhat broader and has greater rights than dependency guardianship (see Dora V. v. Superior Court (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 987 , 1002; Merrick V., supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 250), section 728 authorizes the juvenile court to terminate a probate guardianship if a dependency petition under section 300 has been filed. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. J.J.
green
1 sentence2023Viewing the evidence before the juvenile court in the light most favorable to its findings, as we must on substantial evidence review (see In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 ), Jing and Dan had engaged in violent altercations with each other; and each had been the aggressor on occasion. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Alma C.
green
1 sentence2016(In re Ashley B. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 968, 979 .) 8 Here, there is no doubt the record, when viewed in a light favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment, contains sufficient evidence to sustain the dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (b). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Phoenix H.
green
1 sentence2013Pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 , and In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 846 , we dismiss the appeal. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. L.C.
green
1 sentence2013(In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1123 .)5 The record contains sufficient evidence to sustain the dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (c). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Sade C.
green
1 sentence2013Pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 , and In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 846 , we dismiss the appeal. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Detrich v. Maria F.
green
1 sentence1986In re Antonio F., supra, 78 Cal.App.3d 440 , involved a total lack of due diligence to locate and notify a parent of a section 300 dependency petition. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Carter v. Benjamin L.
green
1 sentence1979Kelvin M. therefore does not apply to the facts before us and does not mandate dismissal in the absence of a due process violation. *599 Far closer to the legal issues before us is the case of In re Adele L. (1968) 267 Cal. App.2d 397 [ 73 Cal. Rptr. 76 ], where a divorced father sought reversal of a dependency adjudication and disposition after the mother, who had been awarded custody of their son, failed to provide proper parental care. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
In Re Adele L.
green
1 sentence1979Kelvin M. therefore does not apply to the facts before us and does not mandate dismissal in the absence of a due process violation. *599 Far closer to the legal issues before us is the case of In re Adele L. (1968) 267 Cal. App.2d 397 [ 73 Cal. Rptr. 76 ], where a divorced father sought reversal of a dependency adjudication and disposition after the mother, who had been awarded custody of their son, failed to provide proper parental care. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.